My own working theory is that there was a deep fracture between CIA operators on the ground of Turkey and Syria and Libya, and directives from the State Department.

CIA’s operators deal with practical elements: territories, paths, ammunitions, weapons, intelligence, access, etc. But the State Department deal with ideological ramifications. Benghazi was staffed with CIA’s operators, whose job was a) to secure and destroy dangerous weapons looted from Gaddafi’s stockpiles during and after the 2011 revolution, and b) to facilitate the onward shipment of those weapons to Syria and other countries. Those operators are part of the CIA’s Global Response Staff (GRS), which is constituted by *secret* security forces (created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks).

Ty Woods and Glen Doherty were both members of the CIA’s GRS, an organization that has recruited hundreds of former U.S. Special Forces operatives and veterans of police department SWAT teams, in order to serve as armed guards providing an “envelope” of security for CIA officers in high-risk outposts. CIA’s GRS units map escape routes from meeting places, pat down informants, recover and funnel weapons. According to his sister, Kathleen Quigley, Glen Doherty “wasn’t there to protect an embassy. He was there to recover RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades].” He was providing security for CIA teams tracking Libyan stockpiles of weapons. Other CIA operatives in Turkey and Syria were there to funnel those weapons into the hands of anti-Assad rebels in Syria.

According to the New York Times, CIA operatives were on the Turkish-Syrian border that summer helping to steer weapons deliveries to selected Syrian rebel groups, most of them “hard-line Islamic jihadists.”

One of those ““hard-line Islamic jihadists” was Abdelhakim Belhadj, head of the Tripoli Military Council and former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (Al-Jama’a al-Islamiyyah al-Muqatilah bi-Libya). According to a military official working with him and quoted by the Daily Telegraph, Belhadj met with Free Syrian Army leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey.

Abdelhakim Belhadj’s contact with the Syrian Free Army was apparently part of a Lybian delegation to Turkey offering arms and fighters to the Turkish-backed Syrian jihadists.

The Daily Telegraph on November 26 2011 revealed that the new Libyan authorities had offered money and weapons to the growing insurgency against Bashar al-Assad. Mr Belhaj also discussed sending Libyan fighters to train troops, wrote the Daily Telegraph. Having ousted Gaddafi, young jihadists were keen to topple another dictator: Assad of Syria. The commanders of armed gangs roaming Tripoli’s streets said to the Telegraph that “hundreds” of fighters wanted to wage war against the Assad regime.

So, we have the US State Department, post-Gaddafi Libya and Erdogan’s Turkey working together with and through jihadists such as Abdelhakim Belhadj to get weapons into the hands of Syrian rebels, known to be dominated by Al-Qaeda (Al-Nusra) or the Muslim Brotherhood, or the Free Syrian Army.

On June 21, 2012, the New York Timesreported that since March, there is a game-changing “influx of weapons and ammunition to the rebels.”

In May, “Turkish Army vehicles delivered antitank weaponry to the border,” according the New York Times, “where it was then smuggled into Syria,” upon consultation with the United States.

Officials of the Obama Administration and the Muslim Brotherhood have been trying to put together and control a pipeline of weapons and information being routed to Syria, in order to give the Brotherhood military parity with the Free Syrian Army, which has done the bulk of the fighting on the ground.

According to the Time, the rebels are patronized mostly by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. But Saudi Arabia and Qatar are NOT “on the same page when it comes to determining who among the plethora of mushrooming Syrian rebel groups should be armed.”

The Saudis have had historically profund differences with the Muslim Brotherhood. They are basically competing against each other for the control of the Syrian rebellion. “The Salafists are far more traditional and populist than members of the Brotherhood,” wrote Ammar Abdulhamid, since the Brotherhood “often come across to ordinary Syrians as too Westernized and elitist.”

Despite the competition between the Saudis and the Muslim Brotherhood over the Syrian revolt, most the rebel groups get their support via Istanbul, according to the Time.

Turkey acts as a nexus between the Saudis and the Muslim Brother to gain control over Syria’s revolt.

Colonel Afif Suleiman, who was then the head of the Idlib Military Council, a grouping of 16 military units from across the province, was unhappy with the support he gets from abroad.

The Free Syrian Army was then conducting the rebellion on the ground against the Bashar Al-Assad régime. But the Muslim Brotherhood tried to become the effective head of the rebel groups. The Muslim Brotherhood was seen by the FSA as trying to reap all the benefits of the rebellion, a rebellion they were not fighing on the ground for.

Most of the Free Syrian Army units were facing pressure to take orders from the Muslim Brotherhood leaders, in exchange for weapons and money, reportedTime.

The Obama Administration did its part to help the Muslim Brotherhood by providing intelligence gained from electronic eavesdropping and satellite surveillance to the militias picked by the Muslim Brotherhood, and helping the Brotherhood to dispose of rival militias.

In June 2012, the New York Timesreported that the CIA was helping direct “automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition and some antitank weapons,” bought by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and smuggled into Syria by the Muslim Brotherhood.

CIA operatives in southern Turkey were “helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian government, reported the New York Times.

The Obama administration, according to the New York Times, was providing satellite imagery and other detailed intelligence on Syrian troop locations and movements”.

The aftermath of the “intervention” in Libya boosted the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, linked to Al-Qaeda and other groups more attached to the Muslim Brotherhood. Gaddafi’s stockpiles of weapons were spilled around, and those weapons made their way into Syria.

Hillary Clinton dealt with the Muslim Brotherhood for instance, or Erdogan’s Administration, negotiating in air-conditionned rooms among well-shaved guys in ties and suits, and well-heeled women. Whereas the CIA’s operators (and possibly other privately contracted units) deal with realities on the ground: in the summer of 2012, they dealt with actual FSA units on the ground of Syria.

Directives, I am speculating, from the State Department were to deal mainly (if not only) with bands affiliated to the Muslim-Brotherhood in Syria. But the problem was, there were no real, actual presence of the Brotherhood then on the ground at the time : al-Nusra and other al-Qaeda-affiliated bands were then more marginal than they are now.

When in September 6 2012, 5 days before the Benghazi attack, the Al Entisar ship docked in Turkey with the most imporant cargo (since the anti-Assad insurrection) in terms of weapons and medical drugs, there was a fight between elements the FSA and members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

My guess is that the FSA had intelligence from CIA operators about the Al Entisar cargo. They tried to get what they considered their fair share.

Then, five days later, the Muslim Bros retalitated by pillaging the CIA Annex in Benghazi.

It was a show of force by the Muslim Brotherhood. A ‘don’t fuck with us’ message.

But to whom was this message directed? Why attack the CIA Annex whilst the Obama Administration sponsors you, when the US State Department aligns with you?
And why would Turkey command its Consul General to set up Ambassador Stevens to be killed? Why?

I’ve pondered those questions, and here’s a plausible answer:

We have the testimonies of many FSA units and affiliated Syrian bands (such as Abu Issa’s and Jamaal Marouf’s) complaining about how difficult it is to get weapons and cash from abroad. We have FSA-aligned warlords making YouTube videos about this very issue, and complaining in those same videos about interference from the Brotherhood. And then, we have a fight between the FSA and the Brotherhood over a very large cargo of weapons.

Five days later, the Ambassador is mandated to meet the Turk at the Benghazi ‘Consulate’ at the request of both the US State Department and Erdogan’s Administration. And as soon as the Turk leaves the premise, the attack begins.

Note also that contrary to previous report by the State Department, it seems that Ty Woods and Glen Doherty never went to the ‘Consulate’: they fought only at the CIA Annex.

My guess is that the attack was targeted at the CIA, not the State Department: ransacking its cash and weapons at the Benghazi Annex. But why kill Ambassador Stevens then? Well, Stevens was exactly at the junction between the State Department and the CIA: he was the face of this junction; his job was to organize and to cover for this.

In August 2012, “President Barack Obama signed a *secret* order authorizing U.S. support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government.” In practice this means permission to sell or give weapons to the rebels.

The American mission in Libya was trying to buy back weapons previously owned by the Gaddafi régime, and which spread everywhere after the “revolution”, and to funnelled some of them to the rebels in Syria.

Peter Bouckaert, Human Rights Watch emergencies director, told CNN that “in every [Libyan] city we arrive, the first thing to disappear are the surface-to-air missiles.” “We are talking about some 20,000 surface-to-air missiles in all of Libya, and I’ve seen cars packed with them” he said.
Those missiles can fetch several thousands of dollars on the black market, and the United States has spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to buy them back.

A month after the October 2011 death of Gaddafi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced in Tripoli that the United States “has committed to providing $40 million dollars to assist Libya’s efforts to secure and recover its weapons stockpiles.”

“The rebels came from all over the western mountains, and they just took what they wanted,” said Riyad to the New York Times, “a supervisor of the ruined arsenal’s small contingent of rebel guards.”

According to a report (PDF) by the UN Support Mission in Libya, Gaddafi had accumulated a large stockpile of MANPADs, and although thousands were “destroyed” during the 2011 military intervention in Libya, there were “increasing concerns over the looting and likely proliferation of these portable defence systems, as well as munitions and mines, highlighting the potential risk to local and regional stability.”

As soon as islamic organizations outside Libya realized that there were Manpads available, they tried to get them.

Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Support Mission in Libya

Now it looks like the role of the U.S. mission in Libya was to control the flow of arms from Libya to rebels in Syria. And that traffic had to pass by Turkey. Why Turkey? Because Turkey works as a crucial nexus via which money and informations and weapons reach Syrian rebels. (Yes, there is an emerging weapons pipeline from Jordan too.)

Let me illustrate this with an example: the ship named Al-Entisar (Victory).

Al-Entisar is a Libyan ship which was chartered to the non-governmental organization Insani Yardim Vakfi (IHH), a self-defined Turkish Islamic group.

The group accused of operating the ship moving the weapons to Turkey is the Foundation for Human Rights, and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (IHH), “an islamic Turkish NGO” founded in 1992, and now active in more than 100 countries.

This islamic Turkish NGO was the organization operating the Mavi Marmara, the lead ship of the six-ship Gaza flotilla “carrying 10,000 tonnes of medicine, construction materials and education supplies” that was stormed by Israeli troops in May 2010.

“IHH,” wrote the BBC, “raises some of its money from Islamic religious groups and has strong sympathy among Turkey’s Islamist-rooted ruling party.”

According to the BBC, “The ITIC says it also has evidence the IHH has helped provide weapons and funds for ‘Islamic terrorist elements in the Middle East‘.”

The ITIC has reliable information indicating that in the past IHH had links with global jihad and Islamic terrorist elements in the Middle East. As part of its connections with the global jihad it supported jihadist terrorist networks in Bosnia, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Chechnya.

According to the Times of London (September 14, 2012), the Al Entisar was carrying 400 tons of cargo when it docked in Iskanderun.

Some of the cargo was humanitarian, but also weapons: it was a very large consignment of weapons heading for Syria.

A Libyan ship carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria since the uprising began has docked in Turkey and most of its cargo is making its way to rebels on the front lines, The Times has learnt.

Among more than 400 tonnes of cargo the vessel was carrying were SAM-7 surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), which Syrian sources said could be a game-changer for the rebels.

“This is the largest single delivery of assistance to the rebel fighting units we have received,” said Abu Muhammed, a member of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), who helped to move the shipment from warehouses to the border. “These are things that could change the tide — if they are used correctly.”

The Times was shown the Libyan ship, The Intisaar or The Victory, in the Turkish port of Iskenderun and papers stamped by the port authority by the ship’s captain, Omar Mousaeeb, a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organisation called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support, which is supporting the Syrian uprising.

The scale of the shipment, and how it should be disbursed, has sparked a row between the FSA and the Muslim Brotherhood, who took control of the shipment when it arrived in Turkey.

More then 80 per cent of the ship’s cargo, which included some humanitarian supplies, has been moved into Syria. Mr Mousaeeb and a group of Libyans who had arrived with the ship said they were preparing to travel with the final load into Syria to ensure it was being distributed.

Video and photos supported the claim that the weapons had arrived and had been moved to the border, the biggest such transit of supplies since the Syrian insurrection to overthrow the Assad regime began in March 2011.

“I can’t say to the media all we are doing. I can only talk about the medicine and humanitarian aid,” Mr Mousaeeb said. “Our ship carried urgent cargo that the Syrian people need to be successful in their revolution.” He said the cargo had been collected in Benghazi after an urgent appeal by Syrian rebels to groups involved with the Libyan revolution.

“They said that the conditions, the lack of weapons and material, was holding back the Syrian revolution from success,” Mr Mousaeeb said. “We now see there is even more they need.”

[…] In late April, Lebanese authorities seized a large consignment of Libyan weapons, including RPGs and heavy ammunition, from a ship intercepted in the Mediterranean. The ship was attempting to reach the Lebanese port city of Tripoli, a largely Sunni city seen as supportive of the Syrian rebellion against President Assad.

[…] Suleiman Hawari, an Australian-Syrian based in Antakya who works with Mr Mousaeeb, said: “Everyone wanted a piece of the ship. Certain groups wanted to get involved and claim the cargo for themselves. It took a long time to work through the logistics.”

Falten Tirsijria and Samar Srewel, two Syrian female activists with the FSA, said there was widespread talk of Syrian groups who allied themselves with the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood movement being given a larger share of the ship’s cargo.

“The Muslim Brotherhood is trying to play a larger role in Syria and they knew if they could get their hands on the cargo it would help,” Ms Srewel said. “We think that the Libyans were manipulated by the Muslim Brotherhood to give them the cargo — instead of distributing it equally.”

Mr Mousaeeb declined to comment on which units had received cargo or how they had arranged its distribution. “The Syrian people need to unite together and stop the fighting between themselves,” he said. “We have experience from Libya. Take what we give you and fight with it against Assad.”

According to the captain of the ship, there was a fight about these weapons, between members of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and elements of the Muslim Brotherhood.

As of September 2012, the FSA had been fighting for over a year, on the ground, against the Assad regime. The FSA was then providing the command structure able to organize multiple bands of wars, and defected military units.

Incidentally, the IHH (the Turkish Islamic NGO who was in charge of Al-Entisar) is prohibited in Israel since 2008. It worked in the service of the Muslim Brotherhood. Close to Hamas (which is actually a faction of the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza) and to the Islamic regime of Erdogan, it is financed largely by islamic groups. The IHH has been working for a long time to provide arms and funds to several militant factions of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East.

On September 6, 2012, the Muslim Brotherhood tried to take control of the Al Entisar and its precious cargo. And then a fight broke out between the Brotherhood and the Free Syrian Army. Now, could this fight have been linked to the subsequent murder of Ambassador Stevens five days later, and to the looting of the CIA Annex in Benghazi?

According to a Fox News investigation, shipping records confirmed that the Al Entisar docked at the Turkish port of Iskenderun on September 6. Iskanderun (or ‘Alexandrette’ on the map below) is quite close to Idlib (where the Syrian civil war was raging then).

Walid Phares, a Fox News Middle East and terrorism analyst, said, “This is the Libyan ship … which is basically carrying weapons that are found in Libya.”

Could the discussion between Stevens and Akin have been related to the fight between the Free Syrian Army and the Muslim Brotherhood over the Al-Entisar’s cargo?

It seems highly likely. The group that was then operating the Al Entisar, the Foundation for Human Rights, and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (IHH), “an islamic Turkish NGO,” is the same group that was behind the “Free Gaza Movement.” It is a registered charity based in Cyprus, and banned by Israel in 2008.

“IHH,” wrote the BBC, “raises some of its money from Islamic religious groups and has strong sympathy among Turkey’s Islamist-rooted ruling party.”

According to the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC), the islamic Turkish organization is an overt supporter of Hamas (an islamic militant group founded by the Muslim Brotherhood that seized power in Gaza in 2007).

And according to the BBC, “The ITIC says it also has evidence the IHH has helped provide weapons and funds for ‘Islamic terrorist elements in the Middle East’.” The ITIC has reliable information indicating that the IHH had links with global jihad and islamic terrorist elements in the Middle East. Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon said, “The organisers are well-known for their ties with global Jihad, al-Qaeda and Hamas. They have a history of arms smuggling and deadly terror.”

So it looks like the IHH has been involved in the gun-running from Libya to Syria on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Samar Srewel, a FSA activist who did help organize the naval consignment of the Al Entisar, told The Times:

The Muslim Brotherhood, through its ties in Turkey, was seizing control of this ship and the cargo. This is what they do. They buy influence with their money and guns.

The U.S. mission in Benghazi was participating in running weapons from Libya to Syria via Turkey. Then something went wrong at delivery: Free Syrian Army members fought elements of the Muslim Brotherhood over an imporant cargo. Five days later, an American Ambassador is dead, and an Annexe managed by the CIA is pillaged.

Did Ergodan’s Turkey command the Turkish diplomat to help set up the assassination of Ambassador Stevens, and to organize the subsequent looting of the CIA annex, which contained PLENTY of weapons and PLENTY of cash? Was the State Department involved?
In order to answer this question, we need to understand Turkey’s role in the gun running from Libya to Syria.

A key character here is Abdelhakim Belhadj.

Belhadj with Wisam Ben Ahmaid.

Belhadj traveled often between Libya and Turkey before the Benghazi attack. He is now the head of the Military Council of Tripoli. But he was previously very closely associated with al-Qaeda.

Belhadj fought indeed as a mujahid in Afghanistan during the 1980s, with the troops of Osama bin Laden against the Red Army. He then founded a group of Islamic jihadists in Libya. He moved along Pakistan, Turkey, Sudan, Iraq… where he fought alongside al-Qaeda’s actual leader, al-Zarqawi.

Belhadj met with leaders of the Free Syrian Army in Istanbul, as well as on the Syrian-Turkish border. In fact, it is Mustafa Abdel Jalil, officiating then as the interim president of Libya, who sent him there. Belhadj was part of a Libyan delegation which proposed to send not only weapons, but also Libyan fighters to Syria, in order to support the anti-Assad insurrection. The new Libyan authorities offered money, arms and men to the uprising against the Assad regime. After chasing Gaddafi, hundreds of Libyan young men, still filled with revolutionary fervor, are eager to overthrow the dictator next …

The CIA was also involved in this trade. CIA agents working in conjunction with the Turkish intelligence agency Millî İstihbarat Teskilati (MIT), near the Turkish-Syrian border, organized arms deliveries to rebel groups in Syria. Abdelhakim Belhadj was also involved.

Belhadj, a leader of the revolutionary effort against Gaddafi and now an active agent of the Libyan government, surely had access to Qaddafi’s stockpiles of weapons, and to weapons provided by the Obama regime. He was probably aware of the CIA Annex in Benghazi, of the high value of its stock.

We know he has been closely linked to al-Qaeda. We also know that the group which claimed responsibility for the attack of 11 September 2012, Ansar al-Sharia, the terrorist group that plundered the stock of money and weapons to the Annex to the CIA, is a front for al-Qaeda. We also know that it is in contact with the leadership of the Free Syrian Army, the CIA, and the Turkish government.

Libya acts as a source of weapons, and jihadist fighters, and Turkey as the nexus that can deliver these items to the Syrian revolution. What is less clear is the role of the Obama regime here.

Turkey, by the way, is the nexus as other heterogeneous flows, such as networks based sheikhs in Saudi Arabia, dedicated to raising funds to support Syrian rebels.

“Abdulhakim Belhadj, head of the Tripoli Military Council and the former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, “met with Free Syrian Army (FSA) leaders in ISTANBUL and on the border with Turkey,” said a military official working with Mr Belhadj. “Mustafa Abdul Jalil (the interim Libyan president) sent him there.”

Belhadj might very well be a KEY figure to unfold the nexus between Syria’s incipient islamic revolution, the FSA, and the presence of the Turkish Consul General in the BENGHAZI facility the night Ambassador Stevens was killed and the CIA Annex attacked and looted.

According to U.S. military officials working with Belhadj and quoted by the Daily Telegraph, Belhadj met with Free Syrian Army leaders in Istanbul and on the Turkey/Syria border.

Why Istanbul? Because ISTANBUL is where moneymen from Qatar and Saudi Arabia meet with leaders of the FSA for money and weapons. ISTANBUL is the junction between Libya, the Gulf and the Free Syrian Army.

The Time reported that rebel sources who dealt with a man named Okab Sakr say he was in the Turkish city of Antakya, overseeing the distribution of small consignments of 50,000 Kalashnikov bullets and several dozen rocket-propelled grenades to the Free Syrian Army.

Could a COMMAND CENTER IN ISTANBUL have been directing weapons transported with the help of Turkish intelligence to the Syrian border, and then to the Syrian rebels?

Fox News Bureau Chief of Intelligence Catherine Herridge said that the role played by the U.S. Mission in Libya was to control the movement of weapons out of Libya to Syrian rebels.

The Benghazi mission played a key role in “engaging, legitimating, enriching and emboldening Islamists who have taken over or are ascendant in much of the Middle East,” said the president of the Center for Security Policy.

In March 2011, the Reuters news service reported that “President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.”
At a hearing on March 31 2011, before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Republican Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen asked “What assurances do we have that they will not pose a threat to the United States if they succeed in toppling Qaddafi?“.

“There are reports that some opposition figures have links to Al Qaeda and extremist groups that have fought against our forces in Iraq.”

“The record on transfers of military-related items involving Libya is also disconcerting,” she said. “For example, for over a year, I requested a detailed national interest justification for two proposed weapons transfers to Libya.”

Benghazi was staffed with CIA’s operators, whose job was a) to secure and destroy dangerous weapons looted from Gaddafi’s stockpiles during and after the 2011 revolution, and b) to facilitate the onward shipment of those weapons to Syria and other countries.

According to the New York Times, CIA operatives were on the Turkish-Syrian border that summer helping to steer weapons deliveries to selected Syrian rebel groups, most of them “hard-line Islamic jihadists.”

We know that in Benghazi, Ambassador Chris Stevens and the CIA in Benghazi were somehow, some way running or heavily involved in a pipeline of money, weapons and information being routed from Libya to Syria. We know Libya is the doorway to the Caliphate so as to get arms in for distribution to Syria, Yemen, Jordan, Egypt and eventually Saudi Arabia.

Weapons, money and fighters are going to Syria right everyday now, to terminate the Assad regime and institute an islamic Republic in Damas.

Crisis Group also cite Egyptian Salafist al Sabai, Shamikh writer Abu Saad al Amili, and Jordanian Salafist Abu Muhammad al Tahawi among those the prominent clerics urging Syrian Salafist jihadis to join al Nusrah, al-Qaeda’s front in Syria. They do NOT invite them to clash with the FSA however nor with the Muslim Brotherhood, but to cooperate with all anti-Assad factions. Some of them criticize the FSA’s leaders for adopting “infidel democracy” and accepting the legitimacy of the U.N. and of “apostate” Arab regimes. But they all acknowledge the FSA contribution to the fight against the Assad regime.

Al Nusrah “claimed in its first video that its members included Syrian jihadists who had returned from fighting on other battlefronts.”

It grew in late March and April 2012 after leading jihadists joined the leadership and were able to secure sponsorship of key Salafists.

Then the American escorted the Turk to the door to say goodbye. “Everything is calm at 8:30 PM. There is nothing unusual,” according to a briefing from the U.S. State Department. BUT Associated Press (AP) reported testimonies from a few neighbors, Libyans in Benghazi living next to the ‘Consulate,’ according to which there were “150 bearded gunmen […] sealing off the streets leading to the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. They set up roadblocks with pick-up trucks mounted with heavy machine guns, according to witnesses. The trucks bore the logo of Ansar al-Shariah, a powerful, al-Qaeda affiliated local group of Islamist militants who worked with the municipal government to manage security in Benghazi […]”.

The Turkish Consul General had to go through the blockade as he left the vicinity of the compound, and the attack began as soon as he went through.

So the Turk had to pass out through the blockade as he departed the American ‘Consulate’ and left the area. The fact that the Turkish Consul General was able to get through the newly-established terrorist checkpoints when “no one could get out or in,” (according to a neighbor interviewed by AP) points to the Turkish diplomat being complicit with the attackers.

According to State Department’s Charlene R. Lamb, as soon as the attack began, a Diplomatic Security agent working at the Tactical Operation Center of the ‘Consulate’ activated immediately the Imminent Danger Notification system.

Ambassador Steven, Sean Smith, and four Security agents–including David Ubben–were within the ‘Consulate’.

Sean Smith died during the attack, and David Ubben was among the agents his who pulled out the Officer’s body, and rushed it into the armored vehicle that brough them back to the CIA Annex. Ubben was thus involved in both buildings’ attacks.

***

Doherty had flown from Tripoli to Benghazi with 3 others via a private plane.

In Benghazi they were frustratingly detained while negotiating with the right militias to reach where they wanted to go. They knew that the battle was raging and had now shifted from the temporary mission to the Annex. As soon as they could, they hired a car to rush them to the Annex, arriving at around 5 AM.

At the Annex, they joined the fight. Glen […] fired on attackers from a defensive position inside. He heard that Ty was directing the defensive operation from the roof and went to join him. On the fortified roof, Glen hugged Ty, who gave him a hearty endorsement in introducing him to the 2 other men up there, one GRS and one DSS (State Department security). […]

Enemy mortars “bracketed” the building, over–and under–shooting it before three struck the roof in quick succession. The first killed Ty and critically injured the other GRS agent. The second killed Glen instantly. Each of the three severely injured the DSS agent.

It was shortly after 6 AM. At this point, readings from an unarmed drone suggested about a hundred more militants were on the move towards them. The decision was made to evacuate everyone to the airport. […] The two others wounded on the roof remain very severely injured, but are recovering.

We know that David Ubben was one of the ‘severly injured’. He’s recovering indeed — at Walter Reed Medical Center. We don’t know yet if he was working for the DSS or the CIA’s Global Response Staff.

CIA’s Global Response Staff (GRS)
Part of the expansion of the CIA’s paramilitary capabilities, GRS units are *secret* security forces created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Ty Woods and Glen Doherty were both members of the CIA’s GRS, an organization that has recruited hundreds of former U.S. Special Forces operatives and veterans of police department SWAT teams to serve as armed guards providing an “envelope” of security for CIA officers in high-risk outposts, whose assignments carry a high level of risk.

GRS units also provide security for personnel from other agencies, including National Security Agency teams deploying sensors or eavesdropping equipment in conflict zones. They map escape routes from meeting places, pat down informants and provide an envelope of security.

Glen Doherty was a GRS contractor on his second CIA assignment in Libya. He had served in other places, including Mexico City.

“He wasn’t there to protect an embassy. He was there to recover RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades],” said Doherty’s sister. He was providing security for CIA teams tracking Libyan stockpiles of weapons.

The Constitutional rights of an entire town were violated Friday, April 19, 2013. The Constitution was deactivated by an undeclared state of exception, — complete with “papers please” searches and seizures and military hardware and weapons all over the streets.

The Obama régime shut down an entire city to literal empty sidewalks.

And train service was halted along a stretch over a hundred mile.

The authorities also prevented residents who were away from their homes from returning their own homes, thus dispossessing citizens of their own residences for a while.

And by effectively occupying a part of the Boston metro area, law enforcement officers made a mockery of the 4th Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

— The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution

Since there was no “hot pursuit,” no argument was available to Law Enforcement Officers allowing searches of private property without consent or a warrant.

The Fourth Amendment applies in Boston to the searches of homes and what was done there is unconstitutional and as a consequence is a crime under 18 USC 242. The so-called “law enforcement” enforcers who committed those searches and seizures under duress without a warrant violated the law. This is true irrespective of the means by which such is done because The Fourth Amendment does not grant you the right to be secure in your papers and effects: you have that right because it is an essential element of liberty; the freedom to possess privately-obtained property through the fruits of your labor without it being rifled through or stolen by anyone, including government agents, except under due process of law where probable cause exists to believe you have personally committed a crime. There are logical exceptions — if a police officer personally sees a fleeing felon he is chasing enter your residence he can follow him onto your property without a warrant. But what he can’t do is guess.

The Fifth Amendment also gives rise to criminal liability under 18 USC 242 to the extent that anything was seized, no matter how momentarily, without a warrant.

The exception to the rule has become the rule under Obama — to an unprecedented extent. The Obama régime has been systematically institutionalizing arbitrary decision. It has created a new “normal” relationship between the citizen and the State.

What we are witnessing is no longer the free and active participation on the political level, but the appropriation and registration of private life and properties, and the control and manipulation of public speech by main-stream media installations.

The very distinction between peace and war, and between foreign and civil war, is impossible where the emergency becomes the rule. This began under Bush, with the Patriot Act. But it has been consolidated by the Obama administration.

1) Obama appeals to the principle of the state secret to block any judicial oversight of “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

2) Obama asserts an exception for suspects considered terrorist threats.

3) Obama institutionalizes trial by military commission on domestic soil for individuals deemed “unlawful combattants” — in order to lower the bar of what constitutes admissible evidence and to restrict a suspect’s rights to legal defense.

4) Obama expands the system of secret “black sites” into which unlawful combattants disappear without a trace, whilst extending the mandate of the CIA (beyond information gathering) to military special-operation interventions.

Obama has made the CIA becomes a full-spectrum paramilitary force unto itself, carrying out the shadowy war games of the régime under the cover of secrecy provided by its black sites.

Obama also issues secret Executive Orders giving the Pentagon’s US Special Operations Command CIA-like surveillance capabilities. Perpetually poised for instant delivery of extralegal action on demand, the USOC reports directly to the president personally.

5) The practice of targetted assassination has expanded significantly under Obama. The régime has even extended targetted assassination to US citizens.

6) Obama used the national security rationale to institute exceptions to constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure. And he has expanded the high-tech surveillance system by invoking state secrets to prevent judicial oversight.

Obama has also declared war on whisle-blowers, prosecuting with draconian zeal individuals who leak government and military information.

7) Obama deployed the military in Libya without consulting Congress — and never went back to Congress for its rubber stamp.

The use of extralegal powers is becoming the norm. The exception is becoming the norm. And that’s why a hot war is inevitable. THE EXCEPTION is now THE NORM, and peace cannot be distinguished from war any longer. The Constitution is out of order, inoperative, neutralized.

During the Civil War (1861–1865), Lincoln acted counter to the text of Article 1 (on April 15, 1861) by proclaiming that an army of seventy-five thousand men was to be raised and convened a special session of Congress for July 4. In the ten weeks that passed between April 15 and July 4, Lincoln acted de facto as a total dictator. On April 27, Lincoln authorized the General in Chief of the Army to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus whenever he deemed it necessary along the military line between Washington and Philadelphia. Furthermore, on February 1862, Lincoln imposed censorship of the mail and authorized the arrest and detention in military prisons of persons suspected of “disloyal and treasonable practices“.

“Whether strictly legal or not, [the measures he had adopted had been taken] under what appeared to be a popular demand and a public necessity” in the certainty that Congress would ratify them. Those exceptional measures were based on the conviction that even fundamental, natural law could be violated IF the very existence of the union and the juridical order were at stake:

Since the power of the President is grounded in the emergency linked to a state of war, the metaphor of war became a part of the presidential vocabulary whenever decisions considered to be of vital importance are being imposed.

In 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt was able to assume extraordinary powers by presenting his actions as those of a Commander in Chief during a military campaign:

“I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army of our people dedicated to a disciplined attack upon our common problems.…I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken Nation in the midst of a stricken world may require.…But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take [the necessary measures] and in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis—broad Executive power to wage war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.“

From the constitutional point of view, the New Deal was realized by delegating to the President (through a series of statutes culminating in the National Recovery Act of June 1933) an UNLIMITED POWER to CONTROL every aspect of the economic life.

The outbreak of World War Two extended these powers with the creation of a “Office of Emergency Management” [the ancestor of today’s FEMA]. On September 7, 1942, FDR renewed his claim to TOTAL CONTROL during the emergency:

On February 19, 1942, the FDR administration proceeded with the internment of seventy thousand American citizens of Japanese descent who resided on the West Coast (along with forty thousand Japanese citizens who lived and worked there).

***

By constantly referring to himself as the “Commander in Chief of the Army” after September 11, 2001, President Bush produced a situation in which the emergency becomes the rule.

The logic of politics has become a logic of war. This logic renders the citizen a suspect all along, a suspect against which all those military techniques and media installations need to be mounted that had been conceived of only for the most dangerous individuals.

Abdulrahman Alamoudi founded the ISBCC, and the ISBCC is owned by the Muslim American Society.
Al-Qaradawi’s name was listed on the Arabic language brochure for the ISBCC’s mosque — but omitted from the English version.
The Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) sold the land to the ISB for their proposed new mosque at far less than fair market value, and is now being sued by concerned citizens of the area.

The Boston Redevelopment Authority, which is the city’s municipal planning agency and which is comprised of mayoral appointees, conveyed the land for the ISB’s purchase in 2000 at more than $400,000.
However, the city of Boston only charged ISB $175,000 for the land, with an agreement that the ISB perform other services for the city to make up the $225,000 remainder. The ISB agreed to deliver a series of lectures at Roxbury Community College, to assist the Roxbury Community College Foundation in its fundraising efforts, and to maintain a Boston “play area.”
The deal was later described in media coverage as “an apparent financial handout” and a “possible government subsidy” from the city of Boston to the ISB.

From 2004-2010, Suhaib Webb studied at the world’s preeminent Islamic institution of learning, Al-Azhar University, in the College of Shari’ah, in Cairo. He is “an active member of the Muslim American Society” and thus of the Muslim Brotherdood.

Tarek Mehanna and Ahmad Abousamra were indicted for a terror plot in 2009 to murder Americans. Abousamra is the son of Dr. Abdul Abousamra, the former vice-president of the Islamic Society of Boston.

Tarek Mehanna: Wanted by the FBI. The Boston jihadist went to training camps in Pakistan and Yemen, and fought in Iraq and Syria.

Islam is transnational and is going global. The Tsarnaev brothers may or may not have attended an islamic training camp at some point in the past. But islamic training camps are becoming obsolete when it comes to the emerging type of pop-up terrorism favored by jihadists in the West. Muslims who admire the jihadis in Afghanistan, Syria, Chechnya, Mali, Israel, Thailand and a many other places eventually either want to join in or help out. The two brothers received plenty of islamic indoctrination and maybe even explosives-training through jihadist social media.

Their islamic indoctrination comes from jihadist videos of islamic sermons and battle scenes from the front lines of islamic terror. And their bomb-making know-how might have its source in the training materials scattered around social media.

The video teaches that the infidels will suffer a decisive defeat during the End Times at Khorasan, a region including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

@J_tsar is believed to be Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s Twitter Account — since a cached version of this account shows this:

Every muslim is a potential terrorist, ready to undergo jihad. As a muslim becomes more islamic, his thoughts turn to jihad — whether supporting it directly or indirectly. His increasing islamism need not become overt. A muslim can be outwardly secular, but inwardly islamic. He doesn’t have to grow a beard or read the koran everywhere. In order to wage jihad in the West — where muslims are still minorities — islam allows a muslim to live a secular life so long as he dedicates himself to the fight against “infidels”.

Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church;
and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.
— Jesus to Peter, in Matthew 16:18

Peter, in his First Letter, defines the experience of time proper to the Church as ho chronos te paroikias (1 Peter 1.17), — the time of the parish, or parochial time. Originally, “parish” (from para– “besides” + oikos “house”) meant the “sojourn of a foreigner”. In Greek, the term paroikousa — “sojourning” — designates the manner in which dwell foreigners and those in exile. Paroikein — to sojourn as a foreigner — is the word that designates both 1) how a Christian is to live in the world, and 2) the way a Christian experiences time; it is opposed to katoikein, a verb designating how a citizen of a city, state, kingdom or empire dwells.

The term “sojourn” does not refer here to a fixed period of time, a chronological duration. The sojourning of the Church on earth can last — and indeed has lasted — millennia.

The parochial time of the Church — the only time that really defines it and is one with it — is opposed to a common error among Catholics, often called a “delay of the Kingdom of God”. According to this error, the initial Christian community, expecting the imminent Second Coming of Jesus (and thus the end of time, the eschaton), found itself confronted with an inexplicable delay. In response to this error, there’s a movement within the Church aiming at reorientating the bark of Peter to stabilize its institutional and juridical organization, — pushing the Church to cease to paroikein, — to sojourn as a foreigner in this world — so as to katoikein instead, — to live as a citizen of the world and thus to function like any other institution of this world.

The parochial time of the Church cannot designate a chronological period. We can not speak of a chronological delay in the context of the Messiah as though we are speaking of a train being delayed, because there is no place in parochial time for a fixed and final habitation (oikos); there is no time for delay.

It is with this in mind that Paul reminds the Thessalonians, “About dates and times, my friends, we need not write to you, for you know perfectly well that the Day of the Lord comes like a thief in the night” (1 Thess 5.l-2).

In this passage, the verb “comes” — erchetai — is in the present tense, just as in the Gospels the Messiah is called ho erchomenos, ‘He Who comes’ — that is, He Who never ceases to come, and just as Walter Benjamin writes in his thesis on history, “every day, every instant, is the narrow gate through which the Messiah enters.”

The messianic time is not the end of time but the time of the end. It is very different from the apocalyptic time, from the last day, from Judgement Day. What is messianic is not the end of time but the relation of every moment (every kairos) to the end of time and to eternity.

What interests Peter and Paul is not the final day, the moment at which time ends, but the time that contracts and begins to end — the “time that remains” between time and its end; it is nothing less than a radical qualitative change in how time is experienced: as a foreigner in a foreign land.

To live in “the time that remains” between time and the end of time — to experience “the time of the end,” — means a radical transformation of our experience of time. We cannot conceive of it as that segment of chronological time extending from the Resurrection of Christ to the Apocalypse. What is at stake is neither the homogenous and infinite line of chronological time (easy to represent, but empty of all living experience) nor the precise and unimaginable instant where it ends. No. What is at stake is a time that pulses and moves within chronological time, that transforms chronological time from within — like a thief in the night entering through the narrow gate of every day, every instant.

On the one hand, the messianic time is the time that takes time to end. On the other hand, it is also the “time that remains” — the only time we have and will EVER have. It is the time which we need to end time, to confront our customary image of time and to liberate ourselves from it. Chronological time — the time in which we wrongly believe we live — separates us from what we are and transforms us into powerless spectators of our own lives. The messianic time-of-now is the only real time of experience, and to experience this time-of-now implies an integral transformation of ourselves and of our ways of living.

“But this I say, my brothers,
time has contracted (ho kairos synestalmenos* esti).
While it lasts,
those with wives should be as those who had none (hos me = “as not”),
those who weep as though they wept not,
those who rejoice as though they rejoiced not,
those who buy as though they possessed not,
and they that use this world, as not abusing it.”

— I Cor. 7.29-3 1

*The verb systellein indicates both the clewing up of a ship’s sails and an animal’s gathering of its strength before pouncing.

Just as messianic time transforms chronological time from within, rather than abolishing it, the messianic vocation (klesis), — thanks to the “as not,” — revokes every vocation at once; it voids and transforms every vocation and every social condition so as to free them for a new usage (“make use of it”):

“Let every man remain
in the calling in which he was called.
Were you called as a slave? Do not be troubled.
But if you can become free, make use of it.”
(I Cor. 7.20-22)

Under the “as not,” one life cannot coincide with itself, and is divided into a life that one lives (vitam quam vivimus, the set of facts and events that define one’s biography and positions) and a life for which and in which one lives (vita qua vivimus, what renders life livable and gives it a meaning and a form).

To live in the messianic time, within the parochial Church, means to revoke and suspend — every day, every instant — every aspect of the biographical life that we live. It also means to make the life for which we live appears within it. Paul calls it the “life of Jesus” (zoe tou Jesou — zoe, and not bios):

“For we which live
are always delivered unto death for Jesus’s sake,
that the life also of Jesus
might be made manifest in our mortal flesh.”

— 2 Corinthians 4:11

To live the life of Jesus is to live the impossibility that life might coincide with a predetermined social position, or biographical narrative. It means the revoking of those aspects in order to open one’s life to the zoe tou Jesou.

“Do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat or what you shall drink, nor about your body, what you shall put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And which of you by being anxious can add one cubit to his span of life? And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin; yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.”
–Matthew 6:24-34 (Luke 12:24-27)

The verb oikonomein acquires the meaning of “providing for the needs of life, nourishing”: the Acts of Thomas paraphrase the expression from the parable in Matthew 6:26 “your heavenly Father feeds them” about
the birds of the sky as ho theos oikonomei auta.

For Paul, the time of the Messiah cannot be a future time; he always uses the expression ho nyn kairos, the “now time” to defines it. As he writes in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, “Idou nyn, behold, now is the time to gather, behold the day of salvation” (2 Cor. 6:2).

Paroika and parousia, the sojourn of the foreigner and the presence of the Messiah, have the same etymological structure, expressed in Greek through the preposition para-: a presence that distends time and space; an “already” that is also a “not-yet”; a “here” that is also an “not-here”; a delay that does not put off until later but instead produces a disconnection within the present moment that allows us to grasp time; an ultimate that is also a “non-ultimate” — e.g. a penultimate, a next-to-last.

Just as messianic time is not some other time but an integral transformation of chronological time from within, an ultimate experience (an experience of the last things) would entail, first and foremost, experiencing penultimate things differently.

Real eschatology is nothing other than a transformation of the experience of penultimate realities. Yet the evocation of final things to come, of ultimate realities (such as the Kingdom of God), has so completely disappeared from the statements of the Church that it has been said that the Roman Church has closed its eschatological window. “Christ announced the coming of the Kingdom, and what arrived was the Church,” wrote Alfred Loisy.

What is at stake here and now is the Church’s ability to read what Matthew (16.3) called “the signs of the times,” (ta semeia ton kairon). To live in the time of the Messiah means to read the signs of His presence in history, to recognize in the course of history the signature of His economy of salvation. If the relation of history to the Kingdom of God is penultimate, the Kingdom nevertheless is to be found first and foremost in that history. And in the eyes of the Church Fathers, history is presented as a field polarized by two opposing forces: the katechon and the Church.

In a passage of the Second Letter to the Thessalonians, Paul calls katechon the first of these forces. The katechon defers and holds back the eschaton — the advent of the Kingdom of God, the full presence of the Messiah, and thus the end of this world. The katechon maintains and ceaselessly defers the end of time along the linear and homogenous line of chronological time. The katechontic force does it by placing origin and end in contact with one another. And doing so, the katechon endlessly fulfils and ends time. And as it is, this force is dedicated to the indefinite and infinite governance of this world; so let’s call it the State.

As for the second force of history, let’s call it the Church, or the Messiah. Its “economy” is the economy of salvation, and by this token is essentially finite.

The only way that a community can form and endure in time is if these two poles are present and a dialectical tension prevails between them.

Yet this tension seems today to have disappeared from every institutions of this world. The sense for a finite economy of salvation in historical time is weakened; and the infinite economy of the State extends its blind dominion to every aspect of our biographical and social life.

The Church has almost abandoned its eschatological exigency, and this exigency is being recycled and reactivated in a secularized and parodic form — not only in the occult sciences that have rediscovered the gestures of the prophet of doom, and announce every sort of irreversible catastrophe, but also within the State: the permanent crises, the states of permanent exception and emergency that the governments of this world continually proclaim are a secularized parody of the Church’s incessant deferral of the end of time and the Last Judgement.

With the eclipse of the messianic and parochial experience of the Church comes an unprecedented hypertrophy of the State — one that, under the guise of a permanent crisis, betrays its illegitimacy through executive excess and the indefinite suspension of the Rule of Law.

Nowhere in this word today is a legitimate power to be found. Even the powerful men of this world are convinced of their own illegitimacy.

The complete juridification and commodification of human relations — confusions between what we might believe, hope and love and that which we are obliged to do or not do, say or not say — are the signs of the times, not only of a crisis of the State and of the Rule of Law, but also, and above all, a crisis of the Church.

The Church can be a living and legitimate institution only on the condition that it maintains an immediate relation to its end, its finitude, which is the salvation of souls.

According to Christian theology there is only one institution which knows neither interruption nor end: Hell. The paradigm of contemporary politics — which pretends to be an infinite economy of this world — is thus effectively infernal.

Jesus has promised that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church; so the Church has not and will not lose itself completely in time; it will not curtail its original relation with the paroikia; it will not lose its messianic vocation of salvation; it has not been swept away by the disaster of illegitimacy menacing every government and every institution of this world. But it has become very weak and corrupt; the parochial and messianic Church is shrinking; and we should work with that diminishing Church to help it grasp again the historical occasion of now. And to do so, we must remember that the present history of humanity is not an interim founded on the delay of the Kingdom of God.

What is at stake here is the nature and identity of the katechon, the force that defers and eliminates the end of time, in order to perpetuate the penultimate time of the end.

For some Catholics, the main sign of the katechon is the Empire, the sovereign power of the Christian empire:

“The belief that a restrainer holds back the end of the world provides the only bridge between the notion of an eschatological paralysis of all human events and a tremendous historical monolith like that of the Christian empire of the Germanic kings.”
–Carl Schmitt

For others, the katechon coincides with the Jews’ refusal to believe in Jesus Christ. They go so far as to believe that the historical existence of the Church is founded upon the suspension of the Kingdom due to the Jews’ failed conversion. For them, the Church can only exist because the Jews, as the people elected by God as the representative of mankind, have not believed in Jesus. Not all Catholics are antisemitic, but the specificity of Catholic anti-Semitism is defined by those two suppositions relating to the historical existence of the Church (the foiled conversion of the Jews, and the delay of the Kingdom of God). According to this error, the existence of the Church founds itself on the endurance of the Synagogue, — and given that in the end “all Israel will be saved” (Romans II:26) and the Church must give way to the Kingdom, Israel will also have to disappear.

What is crucial here is the reactivation of a philosophy of history oriented toward salvation, in order to resist the infernal economy of the State and the extermination of the Jews. One heresy is threatening the unity of the Church today: the belief that at the point where the economy of salvation had reached completion with the Resurrection of Jesus, an event took place (the failed conversion of the Jews, or the Christian empire) that had the power to suspend the eschaton.
If the eschatological advent of the Kingdom will become concrete and actual only after the Jews have converted, then the destruction of the Jews cannot be unrelated to the destiny of the Church. The deportation in Rome, on October 6, 1943, of a thousand Roman Jews to the extermination camps that took place with the silence of Pope Pius XII points to the ambiguity of a theological thesis that tied both the existence and the fulfillment of the Church to the survival or the disappearance of the Jews. This ambiguity will possibly be overcome only if the katechon — the power that, postponing the end of history, opens the space of secular politics — is returned to its original relation with the salvation of souls and the glorious Kingdom of God.
The action of the powers of this world is eschatologically irrelevant, here: what acts as katechon is not the political power of the State, but only the Jews’ refusal to convert. Historical events — from the World Wars to totalitarianism, from the technological revolution to the atomic bomb — are thus theologically insignificant. All but one: the extermination of the Jews. This false belief is leading many to negate the relation between the time of now and the ultimate apocalypse, and thus to transform the chronological time of history into a suspended time, in which every dialectic tension between the Church and the State is abolished, and the Great Inquisitor watches over so that the full presence of the Messiah is not produced in history.

When, by an act of its own free will, it rejected the truth that it knew about God, satan became the cosmic “liar and the father of lies.” For this reason, it lives in radical and irreversible denial of God and seeks to impose its own tragic “lie about the good” that is God.
— John Paul II

Al-Qaradawi is the undisputed leader of the Global Muslim Brotherhood, the movement’s uber-authority. Based in Qatar, his ultimate, avowed goal is to have the islamic law (Sharia) enforced world-wide. The basic condition for Sharia is an islamic state, or Caliphate. The Muslim Brotherhood, says al-Qaradawi, is fully committed to “the spread of Islam until it conquers the entire world.”

“The Muslim Brotherhood is a global movement whose members cooperate with each other throughout the world, based on the same worldview — the spread of islam, until it rules the world.”
— Mohammed Akef, Former Supreme Guide, International Muslim Brotherhood

Mahmoud Sabbagh (محمود الصباغ), an active member of the organization, wrote about the pledge of allegiance the members must make : “The brother will then be reminded that as long as he is a believer, he will be determined for jihad for allah, to work in the ranks of the Mujahideen. We take a pledge to jihad in the way of allah until islam is victorious, or we perish without victory but with a commitment to secrecy and obedience.”

When, by an act of its own free will, it rejected the truth that it knew about God, satan became the cosmic “liar and the father of lies.” For this reason, it lives in radical and irreversible denial of God and seeks to impose its own tragic “lie about the good” that is God.
— John Paul II

Socialists and members of the Muslim Brotherhood are infiltrating Washington D.C. and other capitals of the Western world in order to loot the treasury and establish an international tyrannical state.

What do totalitarian socialists and supremacist muslims have in common? They declared war on the Jewish people, and they are both denying the Incarnation of Our Lord. In short, they are tools of satan.

Why did satan declare war on the Jewish people? Because they have a Covenant with God.

If Abraham is identified with the land of Canaan (Ezek. xxxiii. 24), he further represents the formal Covenant of God with the Jewish people, sealed by the rite of circumcision. He stands for the constitution of the Hebrews, way before Moses. From this perspective, the foundational premise of the Jewish people is divine election. The Jews indeed do not constitute a ‘race’; there are Jews of all races, of all colours. In the theologico-political history of the world, the Jewish people figures as the people elected by God, in virtue of the Abrahamic Covenant, — as the elected representative of mankind.

In that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying: ‘Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates; the Kenite, and the Kenizzite, and the Kadmonite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Rephaim, and the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Girgashite, and the Jebusite.’
— Genesis 15:18–21

The Bible represents Abraham as coming to the valley of Canaan from the Tigris-Euphrates valley and conquering the land of Canaan.

God elected Israel as the people standing in representation of all the nations of the earth. It is an honour but, due to the Fall of Adam and Eve in the way of the snake and to the subsequent tendency that all people have for sin, it makes the Jewish people the special foe of satan.

It is crucial to understand here that God’s Covenant with Israel is not a mere contract; it is a covenant sealed in flesh and blood — and it can never, ever be broken: for it is eternal.

We see indeed in the Old Testament a continuous pattern of Israel falling away from God, and God taking Israel back.

Abraham and Jerusalem
Abram comes from Ur of the Chaldees. It was the city of the Babylonian moon-god Sin, on the right bank of the Euphrates. The seat of lunar worship, it was a dominant political center of Babylonia.

On the night when he was born, the friends of Abraham’s father, Terah, among whom were councilors and oracles of King Nimrod, observed a star swallowing up four other stars from the four sides of the sky. They hastened to King Nimrod to warn him that a boy was born who’s destined to conquer the world; they advised him to buy the boy from his parents and then to kill him. Terah hid his son in a cave and in his stead brought to Nimrod a child-slave, whom the king dashed to pieces as an offering to the moon-god.

Terah was a moon-idolater (Josh. xxiv. 2); he was manufacturing idols for sale. Abram is said to have broken many idols to pieces and burned them to dust. One night, he set fire to the house where the idols were kept.
And as he kept proclaiming God as the sole Creator of the world and opposing moon-worship, he provoked the wrath of the Chaldeans, and had to leave the country.
Abram then began to nomadize around Canaan. In Hebron he battled Chedorlaomer, the king of Elam, and other kings, east of the Jordan river. On his return to Canaan from this victorious expedition, Abram was blessed by Melchizedek, King of Salem (Jerusalem) and High Priest of ʾĒl ʿElyōn (“God Most High,” as in Deut. 32:8: “When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of men, He set the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.”).

Melchizedek presenting wine for the Todah sacrifice of Israel, the sacrifice of Thanksgiving (Eucharist), which, according to rabbinical scriptures, is the sole sacrifice to be offered in the post-messianic age and for all eternity.

Abram was blessed by Melchizedek, who presented him with loaves of bread as wine was being served.
The King of Salem and priest of God Most High brought out bread and wine, blessed Abram, and received tithes from him (Gen. xiv. 18-20). Reference is made to him in Ps. cx. 4, where the victorious ruler, Abram, is declared to be “priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.”

In the Ethiopian Book of Adam and Eve, Noah tells his son Shem before his death to take “Melchizedek, the son of Canaan, whom God had chosen from all generations of men, and to stand by the dead body of Adam after it had been brought from the ark to Jerusalem as the center of the earth and fulfil the ministry before God.” The angel Michael then anointed a fifteen years old Melchizedek as priest, and brought him to Jerusalem. Melchizedek offered bread and wine upon the altar built where Adam’s body was deposited, and he remained there until Abraham met him.

“For this Melchisedech was king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him: To whom also Abraham divided the tithes of all: who first indeed by interpretation is king of justice: and then also king of Salem, that is, king of peace: Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but likened unto the Son of God, continueth a priest for ever. Now consider how great this man is, to whom also Abraham the patriarch gave tithes out of the principal things. [H]e, whose pedigree is not numbered among them [the sons of Levi], received tithes of Abraham and blessed him that had the promises.”
— St. Paul, Epistle To The Hebrews, 7

“Zedeck” was an ancient name of Jerusalem, where the Ark oh Noah was brought. The city’s first king and priest was known as “Melchizedeck.”

This place where Adam’s body was buried and the Todah sacrifice performed by Melchizedeck is the same place where the Abrahamic Covenant will subsequently happen.

Abraham had two sons with two different women. His eldest son was Ishmael, by Hagar, the slave of his wife Sarah. His other son was Isaac, by Sarah. At the time of the Covenant, Ishmael had been gone long ago.

Expulsion of Ishmael and his slave-mother, Hagar

When Sarah saw Ishmael mocking her son Isaac, she insisted that Abraham cast him out and his mother. Abraham yielded. According to rabbinical literature, Ishmael was about to die of thirst when God commanded an angel to show Hagar the well which was created on Friday in the week of Creation. But this was protested against by an angel, who said: “Why should Ishmael have water, since his descendants will destroy the Israelites by thirst?” God replied: “But now he is innocent, and I judge him according to what he is now”.

According to muslim mythology, Ishmael’s son Qedar, is an ancestor of Mohammed. Ishmael was allegedly buried near the Kaaba, in Mecca.

The Kaaba (cube) is a building made of granite, with a mosque built around it, the Masjid al-Haram (the so-called “Sacred Mosque”), in the center of Mecca.

Within the the Kaaba, there is a black stone (الحجر الأسود,‎ al-Ḥajar al-Aswad), a relics of pre-islamic times when allah, the moon-god, was worshipped. Muslims believe that the black stone is a remnant of the first construction of the Kaaba, the first house built to worship allah, believed to have been undertaken by Abraham and Ishmael. Muhammad allegedly set the black stone into the Kaaba’s actual wall. It is now cemented in the side of the big black cube.

Both Ishmael and Isaac were present at the burial of Abraham, their father.

According to rabbinical literature, Ishmael remained a savage. He turned his bow against Isaac. Judaism views Isaac rather than Ishmael as the actual heir of Abraham, whilst islam holds the opposite view.

A few generations later, Moses was instructed to build the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark, containing the original tablets of the Ten Commandments, was kept in a tent called the Tabernacle.

At the beginning of his reign, King David put the Ark in the tabernacle he had prepared for it in Jerusalem. His plan of building a temple for the Ark was stopped. But his son, Salomon, did build a temple on top of Mount Moriah (also known as Mount Zion and Temple Mount), where God had established His Covenant with Abraham. A room named the Holy of Holies was prepared to host the Ark within Salomon’s Temple, and the Ark was placed therein.

This location is the holiest site in Judaism, and it is the place Jews turn towards during prayer.

The Caliphate endured until the Ottoman Caliphate was abolished in 1924, ending an imperium of almost 1300 years. Until the demise of the Ottoman Caliphate, the muslim world had remained aligned and united under a bay’ah (oath of allegiance) to muhammad, the mouth of allah.

Mohammad as the mouth-piece of allah AKA satan

After the abolishment of the Caliphate in 1924, the Muslim world lost its bay’ah to muhammad through the link of the Quraysh tribe‘s inheritance of the Ottomans. The reign of the caliphs, which began with Abu Bakr, then Umar, Uthman and Ali was finally destroyed.

A Caliphate has not ruled since the demise of the Ottoman Caliphate in 1924. And the project of the Muslim Brotherhood is preciselty to reinstate a Caliphate.

Al-Qaradawi is the undisputed leader of the Global Muslim Brotherhood, the movement’s uber-authority. Based in Qatar, his ultimate, avowed goal is to have the islamic law (Sharia) enforced world-wide. The basic condition for Sharia is an islamic state, or Caliphate. The Muslim Brotherhood, says al-Qaradawi, is fully committed to “the spread of Islam until it conquers the entire world.”

“The Muslim Brotherhood is a global movement whose members cooperate with each other throughout the world, based on the same worldview — the spread of islam, until it rules the world.”
— Mohammed Akef, Former Supreme Guide, International Muslim Brotherhood

It is the nature of islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.
— Al-Banna

The Muslim Brotherhood was established as a secret society renewing a bay’ah to muhammad.

Mahmoud Sabbagh (محمود الصباغ), an active member of the organization, wrote about the pledge of allegiance the members must make : “The brother will then be reminded that as long as he is a believer, he will be determined for jihad for allah, to work in the ranks of the Mujahideen. We take a pledge to jihad in the way of allah until islam is victorious or we perish without victory but with a commitment to secrecy and obedience.”

The Brotherhood developped a paramilitary arm responsible for assassinations and terrorist attacks, secret formations of Fedayeen, prepared for jihad (جهده لإنشاء تشكيلات سريّة من الفدائيين، وإعدادها للجهاد). By the 1930s, the Brotherhood received significant funds from a German journalist affiliated with the Nazi legation in Cairo to establish the Brotherhood’s para-military “Special Apparatus.”

In the late 1940s, Al-Banna led brigades of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1948 Palestine War to fight against the birth of the Israeli State under the slogan “to die for allah is our loftiest aspiration.”

Several units of volunteers in Palestine belonged to the Brotherhood.

Why Satan (Allah) Hates the Jewish People and the Christian People
The Ten Commandments prohibits threatening, bloody violence and what causes that violence: coveting what belongs to thy neighbour.

A man can desire what is rightfully his, but he should not covet what belongs to another, — says the Law. Why not? Because it’s the root of satanic violence. This desire is homicidal in principle; it paves the way to wanting to kill one’s neighbor so as to take possession of his wealth. Underlying this desire is the insidious attempt to become at the image of the other.

Satan is a murderer in principle. It is destructive, and it tries to seduce us into becoming liars, thieves and murderers. That is why it is called the great tempter. It is almost impossible to totally renounce the satanic temptation, because the temptation accompanies humanity since the Fall of Man.

The amount of bloody, threatening violence within a community always ends up reaching a point where the community needs to find a common victim, someone to sacrifice, in order to soothe its homicidal thirst. It’s a way to re-unite everyone against a common victim, in order to put an end to the civil war: by consuming one single victim.

Cain killing Abel reveals the image of such a community united by a murder.

Abel had less motive to kill his brother Cain than his brother had to kill him because he vented some of his potential aggression against an animal surrogate, and thus God was pleased.

The ram Abel sacrificed probably saved Cain’s life.

Now remember Cain’s jealousy of his brother’s favor with God, his impulsive slaying of Abel, and God’s forbearance. Cain’s sentence was to leave the soil he had tilled and wander the earth a restless vagabond. Cain complained to God that exile left him prey to the first stranger he meets. He knew that random violence was the norm outside of God’s sanctum. God responded by marking Cain, and by warning that the slayer of Cain is bound to suffer a vengeance seven times as severe. Cain’s mark is a sign of violence to come. The one who kills Cain will unleash a violence that should multiply sevenfold. And all the victims of that violence will be “Cains” in their own right, marked also by the desire for vengeance. I kill one of yours, you kill one of mine, another of mine kills another of yours, and so forth and so on, in infinite reactions. The alternative to this endless spiral of violence, the one Cain wanted for himself, is to stay in the presence of God. Cain could have done so with an offering of animal blood, yet he missed it.

The messianic community however learned from Abel. Hence the construction of a set of processes that aim to harness the satanic spiral of violence towards a scapegoat — a non-human, sacrificial victim, or a human victim who sinned — such as the adulterous woman. In Judaism, it is satan that was stoned. Contrary to muslims, the Jewish people do not practice stoning anymore. Its tradition can evolve because the judaic field has been bipolar since the Abrahamic Convenant. There is indeed a prescriptive element, the pole of the Law (Abraham’s descendents by Hagar: Ishmael) AND a promissive element, the pole of the messianic community (Abraham’s descendents by Sarah, Isaac), animated mostly by the prophets.

Muslims view muhammed as the “seal of the prophets” because they think he *sealed* the line of prophets. They regard him as the last prophet, and so said the koran.

Islam comes only from the descendence of Hagar, the slave of Sarah. It has evacuated from its conception the promissive element of messianism, in order to promote a dictatorship of the dead, written Law. Inherently unable to ever evolve, islam is stucked in the VIIth century.

Cain against Abel

And by negating the promissive dimension of the Covenant, in order to retain only the prescriptive side, muslims — much like pagans — are doomed to sanctify bloody and threatening violence against any sacrificial victim. Islam provides a framework that justifies and ritualizes the process by which the victim of an arbitrary violence is substituted to any other potential victim. The trick being used here is to deem satan (or allah) as being “good” or “great” in order to let the beast free itself from this cycle of violence. Satan (allah) becomes a god through the sacrifice of innocent victims that are reputed ‘guilty.’

Worshipping Moloch

But there is a way to fight satan. The Christian way of neutralizing satanic violence is to recognize the possibility of the innocence of the victim. Here, satan is caught in its own trap: once the victim is found innocent (Christ returning from the dead), satan appears as the liar, the usurper, the forked-tongue accuser he really is. What is expelled by violence here is in fact the roots and the flowers of evil. Christ, God sacrificed, acknowledged in His divinity, reveals the mechanism underlying human-sacrificing cults such as islam. The Cross denies satan any possibility of excluding itself from its own violence.

Islam comes from Cain, whereas judaism comes from Abel.

The Cross doomed the beast to self-destruction. Satan will eventually self-destruct into its own raging fire, its own furnace of rage.

This was revealed to Abel, Melchizedeck and Abraham; and this revelation is kept alive by the messianic community within the Jewish people, the line of Isaac.

Islam is simply the revenge of satan against the Abrahamic Covenant, the Ten Commandments and the Cross.

Satan wants to enslave men, bring us down with him into an endless spiral of bloody violence. The fallen angel will do anything to exterminate the Jewish People, elected by God as the keeper of the revelation, and to degrade Christ and His authority as the Fearsome Judge of humanity.

If satan was furious after the Abrahamic Covenant, it knew it lost the war after the Resurrection. And in desperation, the beast crafted its master-piece: islam. Islam is not a religion; it is a political, human-sacrificing cult aimed at usurping the Abrahamic Covenant from its promissive element, and at negating the Cross. The favorite scape-goats of islamic mob-leaders are thus the Jews and the Christians.